Can adaptation be a hook for local engagement in REDD+?

As a primarily local issue, adaptation has more direct relevance to local people than the mitigation potential of REDD+, and in the absence of long term monetary benefits from REDD+, could emphasising the tangible contributions to local environmental conditions and wider governance reforms of REDD+ activities help win the hearts of local communities?

Forest mitigation activities, such as REDD+, have the potential to contribute broadly to efforts in adaptation – that is not just to the ‘hard’ adaptation aspects but also softer elements of adaptation too. Hard aspects include the physical beneficial impacts of forests on environmental services such as watershed protection, reduced soil erosion, shelter from strong-winds and tidal waves in the case of mangroves. These are typically widely recognised, however it is the contribution of forests to softer elements such as local adaptive capacity that could have positive impacts for the adaptation of communities to climate change and create a strong incentive to better link REDD+ and adaptation planning.

ODI case studies in Nepal and Ghana have recently demonstrated the potential synergies between REDD+ activities and local adaptive capacity. This focuses more broadly on what a system does that enables it to adapt not just simply what assets it has (although this is accounted for). The case studies found that many of the governance and institutional reforms required to implement REDD+ could consequently result in increased local adaptive capacity.

For example, establishing better cultures and systems of local participation in decision making; increasing knowledge of local stakeholders with respect to climate change impacts; and increased decentralisation of resource management are all examples of actions required for successful REDD+ implementation that would also contribute towards strengthening local adaptive capacity.

For the REDD+ community, explicitly supporting adaptation goals would also have benefits. REDD+ needs buy in from local people in order to offer any hope of permanence and sustainability, so this requires ensuring that benefits are perceived at this level. Delivering benefits through both the physical and softer elements of adaptation, and ensuring that these are felt at the local level, could provide the type of hook that incentivises buy-in to REDD+ by local communities. More so perhaps than the impact of these actions on global mitigation activities or the trickle of cash benefits derived from carbon finance.

We must acknowledge the fact that poverty reduction is the over-riding goal and legitimate responsibility, of national and sub-national governments in developing countries. As adaptation to climate change is a key component of growth, REDD+ must therefore not impact negatively upon it, and ideally contribute towards it. Especially given that long term finance for REDD+ is still uncertain.

The greatest trade-off between REDD+ and adaptation objectives is likely to be in the short-term availability of physical assets. Both the case studies showed that there will be different access arrangements to these assets, with potential reductions and restrictions in access to timber, woodfuel and NTFPs. What is less clear is whether activities to deliver REDD+ will be done in a way that takes into account this trade off and tries to minimise it. Forests in many instances act as a ‘safety-net’ in times of hardship, and reduced access to forests as a result of long-term conservation and climate mitigation actions could be at conflict with this function. Is REDD+ fundamentally opposed to adaptation in the sense? Does REDD+ simply lock-in too many decisions, leaving no room for flexible management approaches?

With nascent adaptation REDD+ plans still in development in Ghana and Nepal, we found both countries were missing an opportunity to ensure complimentary action to tackle adaptation and mitigation through coherent forest policies. In addition, adaptation within the NAPAs is conceived as a series of projects, rather than a cross-cutting approach to decision making in other sectors, such as forestry. There is therefore no scope to set guidelines on how climate adaptation should be incorporated into broader planning, despite the fact that parallel national strategy development in both adaptation and mitigation offers a perfect opportunity to bring the two closer.

So, could engagement with REDD+, despite its complexities and politicised nature, be useful for the adaptation crowd? Could integrating local adaptation objectives in REDD+ activities benefit mitigation actors by increasing the local acceptability of REDD+ schemes and removing the tensions between local costs and global benefits? Worth a closer look at least.

Will McFarland, ODI

Advertisements

About REDD-net

REDD-net is a network to share the information and experience among organisations working for REDD . The power of interests surrounding climate change and REDD , means that, even where governments are well-disposed, pursuing a pro-poor agenda will largely depend on the capacity of southern NGOs to assimilate the new knowledge and use it to champion the interests of the poor.
This entry was posted in REDD+ and Adaptation and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Can adaptation be a hook for local engagement in REDD+?

  1. Pingback: REDD in the news: 15-21 October 2012 | redd-monitor.org

  2. seven spoons says:

    Thanks Will for the good blog!
    In response to the question posed: does emphasizing the local benefits of adaptation make REDD+ more attractive to local communities, I would suggest the following. At least in the Asia Pacific region, one of the most important determinants of whether the localized environmental and other benefits offer sufficient incentives for local communities is determined in large part by issues of tenure. Land tenure and access rights are a fundamental consideration in the degree to which communities will make long-term investments and more importantly forego short-term gains (ie. land conversion to agriculture and other drivers of deforestation). I suspect that where tenure and access rights are secure, then benefits accruing from adaptation may play an important role in gaining buy-in in global climate change activities. Where tenure is insecure (most of this region), it may be a hard sell.
    Cheers,
    Regan Suzuki

  3. Pingback: Can adaptation be a hook for local engagement in REDD+? | REDD-Net

  4. Peter Branney says:

    Will
    I thought this was a useful contribution and it confirms our experiences from Nepal where community based adaptation planning and implementation via community forestry groups is making far more progress compared with the REDD+ and CC mitigation efforts. Even so – I feel that linking adaptation directly with mitigation on the ground is likely to be the most effective approach. In some situations in the forest sector the same activity contributes to both adaptation and mitigation e.g. controlling forest fires, planting trees for soil conservation/soil erosion control. Unfortunately REDD+ as it’s generally being pursued has got too bogged down in the formal international processes (at least UN-REDD and FCPF) whereas in the meantime forestry groups have been seen as a reliable vehicle for adaptation support because they are relatively robust and well-governed and can deliver the actions needed to enhance adaptation (in the Nepal contact at least – although I’m finding this is also true in more recent work in NE India)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s